Court ruling: the key phrase that should favor judges displaced by Kirchnerism

Claudio Savoia

10/21/2020 18:37

• Clarín.com

• Politics

Updated 10/21/2020 6:37 PM

The phrase is lost in the middle of a resolution signed more than two years ago, on April 11, 2018, but it is key in these hours, when the Supreme Court of Justice analyzes what to do with judges Leopoldo Bruglia, Pablo Bertuzzi and Germán Castelli, displaced by the government from the places to which they had been transferred with the endorsement of the same Court, in that Agreement 7 of 2018. In that text, the ministers Ricardo Lorenzetti, Horacio Rosatti and Juan Carlos Maqueda signed that the transfers between seats of the same jurisdiction and with similar functions

.

Precisely the requirement that the highest court would now be evaluating to condition the return of the displaced, making room for

As Clarín has been warning since Sunday, that majority of three ministers who signed Agreement 7 in 2018 today has the fate of Bruglia, Bertuzzi and Castelli in their hands, and would be evaluating

with some conditions.

The other two, Carlos Rosenkrantz and Elena Highton, did not participate in that resolution because in a previous one

much more broadly, even between courts belonging to different jurisdictions.

Now Rosenkrantz would be consistent with that vow, while

Once the explanations have been made, let us clarify the important thing: if the Court returns the judges to their places only until a contest and a new appointment by the Senate and the Executive to cover them is formalized, it

.

It would not be a supposed intermediate solution, but rather

to divide into two steps the erasure with the elbow of what had been written with the hand in 2018.

As this week the constitutionalist Alejandro Carrió, lawyer for judges Bruglia and Bertuzzi, warned in his first claim before the courts in Federal Administrative Litigation, "Agreement 7 distinguishes between valid transfers -which do not require a new appointment procedure- and "Invalid transfers, for not following the guidelines of the Acordada. And

appointment

."

Indeed, in that resolution - with which the Court responded to a question from Justice Minister Germán Garavano regarding the validity of the transfer of Judge Bruglia from TOF 4 to the Federal Chamber - after affirming that cases such as those of that chambermaid did not require a new appointment procedure, Lorenzetti, Rosatti and Maqueda went one step further.

In Point VIII of the Agreement, they affirmed that, “therefore, transfers that have been arranged

(that is, valid transfers such as those of Bruglia and Bertuzzi)

for the coverage of the respective charges ”.

There is not much to interpret: the movements of magistrates between different jurisdictions, or with very different functions, should be endorsed by a new Senate agreement and the subsequent appointment by the President of the Nation.

"The 'solution' for an invalid transfer can never be the same as for a legitimate transfer that, according to the Court, does not require a new appointment procedure," reasoned Dr. Carrió in the program

Any change with respect to that exhaustive decision must be explained by the Court, which would give

.

Meanwhile, the ruling majority in the Council of the Magistracy is advancing with competitions to fill positions in the Federal Chamber.

Today there are two vacancies.

If the highest court now conditions the permanence of Bruglia and Bertuzzi, it would be four.

The government could fill those key seats in a few months.